Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB
[ocr errors]

in the Bible. It is supposed, that David sometimes wrote_by inspiration. Among his last words are the following. spirit of God spake by me, and bis word was in my tongue. The God of Israel said, the Rock of Israel spake to me, He that ruleth over men must be just.” 2 Sam. xxiii

. 2, 3. Here, if I mistake not, we have four different forms of expressing nearly the same thing. What is said, spoken, or done, by “the spirit of the Lord,” or “the Word,” is spoken or done by “the God of Israel,” and by “the Rock of Israel.” What more does the whole amount to than this, that David spoke as he was taught by God, or by the spirit of God? Those who are fond of having a plurality of persons in the one God, may perhaps find four as clearly spoken of by David, as three are spoken of in any part of the Bible; “The spirit of the Lord,- the Word, - the God of Israel, - and the Rock of Israel." These four, it seems, united in teaching the same lesson _“He that ruleth over men, must be just.” May 1 then go forth and proclaim that the one God is four distinct persons ?

4. Is not the term Word, as well as the Spirit, of the neuter gender? are not its pronouns, it, its, it, not he, his, him, when they are grammatically given, except in a very few instances of personification ? Had the rule of grammar now in view been duly observed in the common translation of the first chapter of John's Gospel, how very little there would have been of even the appearance, that, by the Word, was meant a person distinct from the God mentioned in the first verse.

In translating the first four verses Dr. Campbell has observed the rule of grammar, which requires the pronoun to “agree with the noun in gender and number.” The following is his translation: -"In the beginning was the Word ; and the Word was with God; and the Word was God. This was in the beginning with God. All things were made by it, and without it not a single creature was made. In it was life, and the life was the light of men."-So far is this translation from representing the Word as a person equal with the Father, that there is scarcely the shadow of personification.

In further speaking of the last clause of the first verse Dr. Campbell says: _“The old English translation, authorized by Henry VIII., following the arrangement used in the original, says 'God was the Word.?” Perhaps this more correctly expresses the meaning of John, than saying, “the Word was God.” John probably meant, that God was manifested in or by his

that a

word, – that word by which he spoke the world of creation into existence.

5. In my opinion Dr. Campbell was correct in saying that in the first verse “there was a manifest allusion to the account given in the first chapter of Genesis, where we learn that 'In the beginning God made all things by his Word,' God said and it was so. But may I suppose

“God said," or a word spoken by the Almighty, was a distinct person equal to himself? — It is my opinion, that by what John said of the Word in this chapter, he meant to teach Christians, that the same Almighty power, by which God in the beginning spoke the natural light into existence, had been caused to dwell in Jesus as the Messiah, to establish his mission as divine, that he might be the spiritual light of the world, the light of men.

In other words, I think John meant to teach, that the same divine Power, Word, or Spirit, which gave existence to the first creation, had been displayed in the new creation, and that both were equally the works of God. The divine Word, or all-sufficiency of God, having been caused to dwell in Jesus as the Messiah, John proceeds to say; “We beheld his glory, the glory as of the only-begotten of the Father." Here we have the Word dwelling in the Messiah, in whom it pleased the Father that all fulness should dwell. The all-creating Word, the spirit not by measure, the fulness of the Godhead, and the Father dwelling in Christ, seem to me but different forms of expressing the same thing, each denoting the all-sufficiency which it pleased the Father should dwell in his Son. Nor have I the least doubt, that the Messiah was as allsufficient as he could have been by union with a second person of Deity equal to the Father. Christ said expressly “The Father who dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.” If all fulness dwelt in the Father, and he dwelt in Christ, what more could be necessary either to the dignity or the sufficiency of the Messiah? What addition is made to either by the hypothesis, that Jesus was united to a second person equal with the Father? The hypothesis seems to me adapted to confuse the minds of men, and greatly to obscure the real glory of the Messiah.

6. In the 4th verse of John's Gospel we thus read concerning the Word “In it was life, and the life was the light of men.' While this Word dwelt in Christ he said, “I am the light of the world,”—“The words which I speak, they are spirit and they are life.” It was by his words, by reveal

ing the truths of the gospel, that Jesus was the light of the world. By the all-creating word of his power God gave life to the various tribes of animals. So when he had caused this Word to tabernacle in the flesh, Jesus was enabled to give natural life to some who bad been dead; and to give spiritual life to many who had been dead in trespasses and sins. By the indwelling of the Father, - by his Spirit or Word, Jesus could say, “I am the resurrection and the life.” The power of the divine Word was as really displayed when Jesus said, “Lazarus, come forth," as when "God said, Let there be light.” In both cases the effects corresponded with the mandate, - with the Almighty Word.

7. It may be proper to inquire whether the Scriptures do not afford further evidence, than has yet been brought to view, that John, in the first verse of his Gospel, alluded to the first chapter of Genesis in what he said of the Word, and not to any hypothesis of a plurality of persons in the Deity. In speaking of the scoffers who are to appear in the last days, Peter says; “For this they are willingly ignorant of, that by the Word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water, and in the water, whereby the world that then was, being overflowed, perished. But the heavens and the earth which are now, by the same Word are reserved unto fire against the day of judgment, and the perdition of ungodly men.” 2 Pet. iii. 5, 6, 7. “Through faith we understand that the worlds were made by the Word of God.” Heb. xi. 3. “By the Word of the Lord were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth.” Ps. xxxiii. 6. In each of these passages there is probably an allusion to what is recorded in the first chapter of Genesis. To what other passage of the Scriptures could either of these writers have referred ? They all, doubtless, bad in view some well-known passage of scripture which related to the creation of the heavens and the earth; and I know not of any other which seems so probable as the account in Genesis. In the latter part of the verse quoted from the thirty-third Psalm, the "breath” of the Lord is the same as the spirit of the Lord; and is nearly the same as the “Word of the Lord ” in the first part of the verse, as our words are the same as the breath by which they are formed.

By the call of Christ, –“Lazarus, come forih,” life was given to a corpse which had been dead four days. Suppose that in another account of this event we should read that the VOL. XXI. - 3D s.

12

VOL. III.

NO. I.

Word of Christ raised Lazarus from the dead; might we hence infer, that the word of Christ is a second person of the Messiah, equal with Jesus? If not, why should we from similar language infer, that God and his Word are two distinct persons ? Whatever is done by the Word of a man is done by the man; in the same way we should infer, that what is done by the Word of God, or by the spirit of God, is done by God bimself. All this is according to the common acceptation of language. When a writer departs from this use of language, he either writes incorrectly, or he uses the words in a figurative

sense.

[ocr errors]

us.

[merged small][ocr errors]

8. God communicates his revelations to us in the language of men, and we must suppose that he uses words in a sense known to men, or they would not contain revelations. For they would be to us words without meaning, and could communicate to us no idea. God is to us invisible, and we can have no idea of the manner in which effects are produced by him, otherwise than by supposing something pertaining to him analogous to those members or properties by wbich effects are produced by

Hence God is represented in the Scriptures as having eyes and ears, arms, hands, fingers and feet, - a mouth, a tongue, lips, breath, and speech or Word. By the use of such members, or properties, we produce effects; and God is represented as producing effects in a similar manner. Yet it is possible, and perhaps probable, that what is called his spirit, includes all that is meant by most of the members he is represented as possessing, — such as his arms, hands, fingers, his mouth, breath, and word. For it is very certain that these are often used as synonymous with his spirit. His arm, hand, finger, breath, and word, are expressive of his power; and so is his spirit and his word. In Matt. xii. 28, Christ is represented as saying, "If I by the spirit of God cast out devils.” In Luke xi. 20, the same idea is thus expressed, “If I by the finger of God cast out devils.” What then can be more certain, than that in such cases the spirit of God means the sarne as the finger of God. So a man's spirit or power may often be represented as bis hand or finger; or that may be ascribed to a man's hand or finger which is effected by his breath, spirit, energy, or word.

9. Every member or property of a man may be personified and spoken of as though it was a distinct person. How often do we personify his arm, his hand, his mouth, his tongue, his

[ocr errors]

breath, and his word. To each of these human agency is often ascribed, as though they were personal agents. In like manner, the arm, the hand, and the finger of God are personified, as well as bis Word and spirit, or breath. But when we personify the arm or hand of man, or his breath or his word, it is seldom, I believe, that learned men make such mistakes as to suppose that by these members, or personified properties, are really meant several distinct persons in one man. Why then, should they not evince equal wisdom, or equal candor, when the attributes or properties of God happen to be personified in the Scriptures ? This would be no more than judging from analogy as to the meaning of Scripture personifications. But when they convert such personifications into real persons, do they not in fact depart from all known analogies in the use of language? And have they not as good ground for affirming that a man is three distinct persons as for affirming this of God ?

We read of “the Word of Christ,” and of “the Spirit of Christ,” as well as of the Word and Spirit of God. We also are informed that the Messiah is “ the image of the invisible God.” If then, God is three distinct persons, why may we not infer that the Messiah is also three distinct persons.

10. Is it not a solemn truth that the Hand of God is more frequently personified in the Bible, than either his Word or his Spirit? Besides, one of the principal arguments to prove that the Word and the Spirit of God are persons equal with the Father is this, that the same divine works are ascribed to the Word and the Holy Spirit as to the Father, — and particularly the work of creation. Let us then see whether, on the same ground, the Hand of God should not be regarded as a fourth distinct person of the Godhead.

Let Jehovah himself be the witness in this case. “ Thus saith the Lord, the heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool, for all these things hath my Hand made." — Isa. Ixvi. 1, 2. “Mine Hand also bath laid the foundations of the earth.” — xlviii. 13. Hear too what God has said of his Arm, which perhaps implies the Hand. “ Mine Arm shall judge the people, – and on mine Arm shall they trust.” Can any thing short of a person equal with God be competent to judge the people, or be to them a proper object of trust? Yet who has supposed the Hand or the Arm of God, to mean a distinct person equal with the Father? Full evidence can be produced from

« AnteriorContinuar »